The 3-Strikes Policy - Is it really a good thing?

[KayRadley]

I thought this game was rated for teens.

The ESRB cannot rate inter-player interactions. They even list as such on their ratings.

[Themarvin]

Well if you get to talk to a GM for actions you committed you broke a rule with irrational behaviour, don't do that, if you get a warning with them saying it is a nono... then they actually mean it, there is no player rules that can over rule the ToS, however good behaviour among players would be a good start to have nice experience in this game.

[Nightingaile]

Well if you get to talk to a GM for actions you committed you broke a rule with irrational behaviour, don't do that, if you get a warning with them saying it is a nono... then they actually mean it, there is no player rules that can over rule the ToS, however good behaviour among players would be a good start to have nice experience in this game.

"Well if you get to talk to a GM for actions you committed you broke a rule with irrational behaviour, don't do that" - You mean don't talk to the GM or do the same behavior? If the later, that seems obvious.

"if you get a warning with them saying it is a nono... then they actually mean it, there is no player rules that can over rule the ToS" - By "them" are you referring to the GM? If so, how is this sentence different from the prior? Also, why wouldnt they mean it?

Having a hard time understanding what you're trying to communicate here.
'

[Blakemere]

It's an argument for people who are naive enough to believe that there ARE "bad" people and "good" people. For people who want things easy. These things do not exist. Things are *not* that simple.

Well, there are definitely some "wrong 'uns" out there, some pople you jut can't reach, I don't think it's naive at all to recognize that.

Mr. Rogers once said: ""Frankly, there isn't anyone you couldn't learn to love once you've heard their story"

Strongly disagree, some people are just... awful, because they enjoy annoying and upsetting other people.

I'm fine with punishment, but punishment *forever*? *Unforgivable punishment* ? There's no logical basis for that. It's far too black and white.

To be fair, this depends what it's for, if someone is having a bad day and perhaps just says something out of character then sure, let it go and move on. I have an old acquaintance on my Facebook friends list though and he gets a timeout at least once a month, sometimes more frequently and it's always his own fault. He isn't changing and he certainly isn't learning anything from it. Some folks you just can't reach and the problem with a system that's to lenient is people either learn to navigate it or just wait out the temp ban and then carry on as before. I've even worked with people who treat official written warnings like that. A permanent solution is a useful and necessary tool.

And for those of you who would still rather release the guillotine before hearing the plea, consider that your rush to judgement might be a product of modern Cancel Culture as opposed to true and fair justice. I feel I can say this because I have seen it's influence on myself. And we are not very different.

Don't agree, cancel culture is about canceling people who's views you don't like, I wouldn't put repeatedly being an ass to other players or cheating in the same category.

[IruruCece]

Mr. Rogers once said: ""Frankly, there isn't anyone you couldn't learn to love once you've heard their story"

Many people who get caught deliberately breaking the rules aren't sorry for what they've done, or for the people they've hurt. They're sorry because there's potentially consequences for their actions. Invoking Mr. Rogers or the bible or any other holy text doesn't change that, nor does it make me personally willing to forgive racists whenever I've had the displeasure of running into them in game.

Honestly I think three strikes is too lenient and all encompassing for some things. Bigots spouting racist garbage deserve to get banned on the first infraction, not after three. I could watch them get banned all day. I don't care about their accounts or the hours they've spent on them, or the friends they'd miss seeing, and I don't care about their 'story' because I already know where it ends: them being racist and not worth being around, ever. I certainly don't care how long has passed between infractions of that nature. Some things aren't forgivable, and some people keep breaking rules on stuff like this in MMOs because their punishment is little more than a slap on the wrist. If those people didn't want to get banned, they wouldn't be openly racist.

Same rule applies to cheaters, honestly. Get caught, get gone, no second chances, I don't care if you have friends or family who also play. And if they're persistent and keep coming back on new accounts and keep cheating, they can keep getting banned until they either get tired of it or the game eventually shuts down. It's their money to donate to SE if they're so inclined.

[Zfz]

When I see the justifications people give, it's even more obvious. "People who have done bad things are bad, and bad people do not deserve understanding." It's a shallow argument.

I disagree. The focus is on the action, not the person. It doesn't matter what one believes (whether people are born good or born bad or whether there even is such a thing as good/bad people), what matters is that people who disrupt gameplay for other people, and repeatedly do it.

The whole reason there are even three strikes is so that people are forgiven for making mistakes. But if those people don't make an effort to improve, instead start crying about how they should be forgiven more, then I don't see why they shouldn't get a permaban.

Don't make the same mistakes over and over. Respect the rules. Read up on the rules. Make an effort to abide by the rules. That's what the three-strike policy really is doing.

FFXIV has a small community, compared to a nation. And access to a game is not on the same level as real world punishment. Smaller communities have less resources and expulsion has always been a valid and common option for small communities. And if one really cares that much about the game, one should learn to play nice in the game.

There is no true justice in an MMO. There is the company policy that is drawn up based on what kind of community the company wants to build. We have all heard stories of people who just don't care that they are being punished. I think the three-strike policy can help stop that.

If I have to choose whether to provide a better gaming experience for the victim of an action versus protecting the "rights" of the perpetrator or "justice", I would stand by the victim.

Now whether GMs make mistakes or rush their decisions, that is something that can and should be discussed. But the three-strike policy is fine IMO.

[Nothv13]

I disagree. The focus is on the action, not the person. It doesn't matter what one believes (whether people are born good or born bad or whether there even is such a thing as good/bad people), what matters is that people who disrupt gameplay for other people, and repeatedly do it.

The whole reason there are even three strikes is so that people are forgiven for making mistakes. But if those people don't make an effort to improve, instead start crying about how they should be forgiven more, then I don't see why they shouldn't get a permaban.

Don't make the same mistakes over and over. Respect the rules. Read up on the rules. Make an effort to abide by the rules. That's what the three-strike policy really is doing.

FFXIV has a small community, compared to a nation. And access to a game is not on the same level as real world punishment. Smaller communities have less resources and expulsion has always been a valid and common option for small communities. And if one really cares that much about the game, one should learn to play nice in the game.

There is no true justice in an MMO. There is the company policy that is drawn up based on what kind of community the company wants to build. We have all heard stories of people who just don't care that they are being punished. I think the three-strike policy can help stop that.

If I have to choose whether to provide a better gaming experience for the victim of an action versus protecting the "rights" of the perpetrator or "justice", I would stand by the victim.

Now whether GMs make mistakes or rush their decisions, that is something that can and should be discussed. But the three-strike policy is fine IMO.

Propblem is that people are often not told what action they did that was bad. They are just told they did something bad and a general violation, many of which are so braod it doesn't help at all in narrowing it down, thus one cannot correct said action.

[Zfz]

Propblem is that people are often not told what action they did that was bad. They are just told they did something bad and a general violation, many of which are so braod it doesn't help at all in narrowing it down, thus one cannot correct said action.

And I agree that is a problem. But that is a problem not with the three-strike policy, but a procedural problem with how punishment is handed out. I am in full support that any punishment handed out should accompany explanations that help the punished player to learn and improve. But it is not (in my opinion) a valid argument for removing the three-strike policy, as it will create more problems for more people than what it solves.

[Penthea]

The ESRB cannot rate inter-player interactions. They even list as such on their ratings.

My point is that it's quite sad that many players feel they have to behave as if they're surrounded by very young children to avoid being thrown into GM jail.

[Keramory]

snip

Call it shallow. Call everyone secretly good and needing ol' fashioned love to save their soul. Call me blood thirsty for wanting people thrown into the shadow realm. Don't matter. I don't want the guy who can't figure to stop doing a particular bad thing after 3 warnings to tank for me. 3 strikes you're outta here.